> An additional DHCP server is just out of the question. Our clients will be
> scattered across the network in different subnets, a dhcp server in every
> location a client exist is not worth it.
> Is this a limitation with the LTSP diskless client or are all diskless
> clients the same?
It's a *
--- Hans Ekbrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Abdullah A. Al-Humaid wrote:
>>
>> An additional DHCP server is just out of the
>> question. Our clients will be scattered across
>> the network in different subnets, a dhcp server
>> in every location a client exist is not worth it.
>> Is this a l
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:29:34PM +0300, Abdullah A. Al-Humaid wrote:
> An additional DHCP server is just out of the question. Our clients will be
> scattered across the network in different subnets, a dhcp server in every
> location a client exist is not worth it.
> Is this a limitation with the
Message -
From: "rob apodaca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Abdullah A. Al-Humaid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] ThinClient does not communicate with DHCP -
Additional info
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:02:11 +0300
"Abdullah A. Al-Humaid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please note that each of the three parties on the production setup (DHCP SERVER,
>LTSP SERVER, and Diskless Client) are on a different subnets. Is there a problem in
>this kind of setup ? Are there any ro
Please note that each of
the three parties on the production setup (DHCP SERVER, LTSP SERVER,
and Diskless Client) are on a different subnets. Is there a problem in this
kind of setup ? Are there any routing issues that I have to take care of?
--
